個案總覽

Zhang Ruimin's leadership of the renowned Haier Group began before the Chinese company even carried that name. More than 20 years ago, Zhang was appointed director of the Qingdao Refrigerator Factory, which faced enormous debt and didn't seem likely to survive, let alone prosper. The main challenge in those early days was boosting the morale of his workers, who had gone unpaid for months and grown deeply dispirited. Zhang borrowed money so he could catch up on payroll and make other improvements--and his employees took heart. Once he had won their goodwill, Zhang explains in this first-person account, he started demanding good work. There was very little discipline in the factory at that point. Rules and regulations existed in writing but had never been seriously upheld. Zhang guaranteed the payment of salaries, but only on the condition that people obeyed the policies he established--some as simple as "Stealing company property is prohibited." Those who violated factory rules could be given demerits or even deprived of factory membership (that is, no longer allowed to be part of the company's collective ownership). Far from intimidating employees, this boost in discipline gave people a sense of security and hope. Now that Haier is a world-class operation competing in global markets, Zhang's focus as chief executive has shifted from setting a strong example to giving employees room to make their own decisions and realize their goals. To that end, he is striving to create an organizational structure that is as flat and has as few boundaries as possible. He is also emphasizing what will serve the market, not what will please someone further up in the company hierarchy. Employees, he believes, should feel that they have a customer to answer to, more so than a superior.

More than ever, corporations are expected to practice "citizenship" by engaging in various community or social philanthropy programs. These corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs have broad appeal among business scholars, business executives, and the public. After first setting some theoretical boundaries for CSR as it relates to the legal and strategic management fields, the authors examine how CSR (both its implementation and expectations) can lead to unintended results, compromising the distinct roles business and government play in market-driven, democratic systems.

In today's fast-paced competitive environment, firms face the need to be increasingly nimble and adaptive. While often able to establish a certain level of performance based upon existing technologies, firms are equally as often left flat-footed in the face of emerging, novel technologies. Discusses strategic entrepreneurship as the means through which firms can simultaneously exploit their current competitive advantages while exploring future opportunities. Achieving a balance between exploitation and exploration consists of more than merely allocating resources evenly between the two processes. As discussed, exploitation and exploration are operationally, structurally, and culturally distinct processes.

Ethical lapses by employees can put organizations at substantial risk. Although improved compliance procedures can help limit this risk, successful efforts must extend beyond compliance to build a culture of organizational integrity. Recent changes in regulatory requirements and more stringent sentencing guidelines demand an integrated approach to ethical awareness, one that encompasses the four organizational practices of controls, clearly defined principles and purpose, core values, and culture. Inevitably, the most difficult of these is building a culture of high ethical standards that are reflected in day-to-day practice. To overcome the barriers to building organizational integrity, leaders must question key organizational practices while constructing a culture based on ethical behaviors.

Candor ranks very highly among the characteristics we look for in good leaders. A culture of candor, established and reinforced by leaders who value and model it in their own behaviors, can be a source of competitive advantage for organizations. It ensures that good news travels fast and bad news travels faster, allowing mistakes to be recognized quickly and fixed promptly; people own their actions and own up to their errors so that they can learn from them; people know where they stand, know what's expected of them, and know what it takes to get promoted and fired. Candor is at the heart of aligning people with strategy, and is essential to effective execution, performance management and people development.

Leaders expect their followers to be loyal and to be able to depend on their loyalty. Good leaders understand that there is a difference between real loyalty and a related but different concept - fealty. Smart leaders understand that fealty is demanded whereas loyalty is earned. In this article, the author notes some things that leaders can do to earn loyalty.

If organizational structure follows form, the organization that learns well functions well. More precisely, the organization that enables knowledge to flow and be shared at all levels is the organization that performs best. This author describes why learning organizations have the capability to read the market and innovate in ways that lead to success.

Most organizations spend vast sums on information technology to gather, manipulate, store, and use the information and data they gather. Yet, as these authors point out, managing this resource entails protecting it and complying with all laws and regulations. The authors prescribe ten best practices that should allow an organization to protect its data and comply with the law.

Almost faster than you can say mark-to-market accounting, management controls disappeared once Jeff Skilling became CEO of Enron. The rest is sad history and a shareholder's worst nightmare come true. These authors document the subversion of Enron's management controls and suggest the lessons managers can learn from the worst financial collapse in U.S. corporate history.

What makes a leader the most is a certain solidity at the core, a solidity founded on principles that are, essentially, points on a moral compass. Those principles are visible in the actions of some leaders, while other leaders act according to convenience. These authors lay down a blueprint that will allow a leader to be guided by principles.

Look into the soul of any great leader and you will find a good leader. But, if only that were the case. Some leaders, those who crave and bathe in the spotlight, are in fact not so great. Others, who are highly effective (and modest) and possess the five key characteristics this author describes, are good leaders first and foremost. Which is what, in the end, makes them great.

Scratch the surface of a true leader, or look beneath his or her personality, and you'll find character. The traits and values that make up the character of a good business leader are, for the most part, similar to those that make up the character of an outstanding citizen. These authors describe the traits and values that make up the character of leadership.

Sarbanes-Oxley may be onerous, tedious and expensive. But it is also - and arguably the most important overlooked thing - a virtual and heretofore never-considered ally of corporate managers. In fact, as this author argues, learning to live with Sarbanes-Oxley can yield unanticipated dividends and make a manager's life a lot easier.

Organizations that fail to recognize and act on their Strategic Market Position may be at risk. First, however, you must know what Strategic Market Position is and how to use it. This author, who has written the book on Strategic Market Position, describes what it is and how to use it.

Most managers would admit that the COO plays a critical role in an organization and is highly visible within it. These coauthors have identified four conditions or rights that boards and organizations must satisfy to make the COO's role work and add value. They describe these rights in this article and what to do and not to do to make them work.

It is not a crisis - at least not yet - but numerous Canadian SMEs need to get with the lean program before it's too late. The authors visited 18 firms and though they found that lean practices were wanting, they were able to turn their findings into recommendations that manufacturing managers everywhere can implement to make their operations lean.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Because of two trends--rising R&D costs and decreased product revenues (due to shorter product life cycles)--companies are finding it increasingly difficult to justify investments in innovation. Business models that embrace open innovation address both issues. The development costs of innovation are reduced by the greater use of external technology in a firm's own R&D process. This saves time as well as money, and the firm no longer restricts itself to the markets it serves directly. Now it participates in other segments through licensing fees, joint ventures, and spin-offs, among others. These different streams of income create more overall revenue from the innovation. To partake more fully in the benefits of open innovation, companies need to develop the ability to experiment with their business models, finding ways to open them up. Building that capability requires the creation of processes for conducting experiments and assessing their results. Although that might seem obvious, many companies simply do not have such processes in place. In most organizations, no single person short of the CEO bears responsibility for the business model. Instead, business unit managers (who are usually posted to their jobs for just two to three years) tend to take the business model for granted. To understand how an organization can open its business model, the author provides case examples of IBM, P&G, and Air Products, three companies that operate in different industries with vastly different technologies and products. Each used to function with a very internally focused, closed business model, and each has since migrated to a business model that is substantially more open.

Many technology-intensive companies today depend on employees with specialized technical skills, and managers may not fully understand the work these employees do. Moreover, managers and technical employees may have very different worldviews, and their worldviews may conflict during the process of business innovation. After researching the movement of Internet and computing pioneers among various organizations during a period between the early 1960s and the mid-1990s, the authors identified two personality types (stewards and creators) that are vital to successful technological innovation--but whose mindsets often clash. Stewards are usually managers; their goal is the careful allocation of the organization's resources, with an aim of achieving an optimal return on investment. Creators are often skilled, specialized employees whose have a grand vision and mission; they frequently view business concerns as secondary. According to the authors, conflict between stewards and creators is, to some extent, inevitable. However, when such conflict is managed poorly, the organization's capacity to innovate effectively may be impaired. The authors suggest eight guidelines for managing steward-creator conflict. These guidelines include: (1) keep talented creators around, although they can be difficult to manage; (2) balance the influence of stewards and creators in the organization, so neither group always wins; (3) cultivate people who have credibility with both creators and stewards and can help resolve conflicts; (4) use peer review to more accurately evaluate creators' specialized technical work; (5) structure the innovation process so that creators produce tangible results regularly; (6) realize that there will always be some conflict between an organizations' creators and its stewards; (7) avoid overly prescriptive control mechanisms that may alienate creators; and (8) ensure that closure on projects is achieved neither too quickly nor too slowly.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Contrary to the beliefs of many managers, their companies' products and corporate brands cannot truly be managed, much less owned. That much has become clear in recent years as many well known brands have seemed to take on lives of their own, changing in the minds of many even though management may think of them as immutable. In this article, the authors introduce the concept of a "brand manifold" in order to bring out two overlooked factors: first, that brands have multiple dimensions depending on who is valuing them, and second, that those dimensions change in space and time. Drawing on automotive industry examples such as Maybach, Morgan, and BMW's Mini, the authors demonstrate the importance of managing a brand's evolution so that the brand does not lose its roots in the past. They go on to highlight the importance of understanding that brands have a life and meaning independent of what their initiators intended--as embodied by the thriving user community around Apple Computer's long-obsolete Newton handheld and evident in the influence of Harley-Davidson owners over many of the company's strategic decisions.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Today, as consumer choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the other side and complex supply chains span the globe, businesses are facing a host of "sustainability" problems--social and ecological imbalances created by that globalization. Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL--including Shell, Harley-Davidson, HP, Xerox, and Nike, among others) began a series of initiatives focusing on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues. The group's goals have included the application of systems thinking, working with mental models, and fostering personal and shared vision to face these complex sustainability issues. Through its work, SOL (of which two of the authors are founding members) has learned that successful collaborative efforts embrace three interconnected types of work--conceptual, relational, and action-driven--which together build a healthy "learning ecology" for systemic change. In this article, the authors offer examples from particular projects in which learning ecology provided an important foundation for substantive progress, and they draw lessons for companies and managers regarding each of the three types of work. Ultimately, the authors conclude that conceptual, relational, and action-driven work must be systemically interwoven and that there is little real precedent for that. They offer several guidelines for how it can be accomplished, emphasizing leadership and transactional networks. Finally, they pose three questions that must be answered if systemic solutions are to be successful: (1) How can we get beyond benchmarking to building learning communities? (2) What is the right balance between specifying goals and creating space for reflection and innovation? and (3) What is the right balance between private interest and public knowledge?